Briefly, former UK prime minister Tony Blair's eldest son marries his girlfriend of four years, Suzanne.

Her father's wife, Sian Lloyd (whom he met and married about six years ago, his marriage to the bride's mother having ended 13 years ago) was "disinvited" to the wedding, and told she would not be welcome at the Blair home, where the reception was to be held. This is despite having received an invitation (by name) previously.

Shows that even the great and good are incapable of behaving in a civilised manner?

One of the articles I read mentioned (briefly) that she was disinvited because she was insulting to one of the other parents, I think the bride's mother?

So she knows why she was not invited. But she is kicking up a fuss and pretending she doesn't. At one point I think she was even talking about crashing the wedding anyway invite or not. But of course since she publicly announced that, I'm sure the bride and groom made sure she wasn't able to. I had to wonder from reading all that tripe if this was even the first offence. She sounds like a peach to deal with.

Logged

You are only young once. After that you have to think up some other excuse.

Because they had to have known this would go public, I imagine they had a VERY good reason for disinviting her. They were apparently willing to suffer the fall-out for it, so she must have done something really bad to get disinvited.

I have to say if you're suddenly disinvited, after being invited by name (and being the wife of the Bride to Be's father), there's some very serious trouble going on. And if she's talking about "crashing" the wedding anyway, it sounds like it was caused by her, originally.

Of course, a couple of centuries ago, the great would have solved this by sending her to a dungeon for a few decades, if not to the block. However, we *are* more civilized today, although the existence of the yellow press might argue otherwise.

Logged

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

The story coming out is that she recently interviewed Blair and, like a journalist should, didn't suck up to him as a future vaguely 'in-law', but did a normal interview, which included some criticism of him over the Iraq war. The interview is to be broadcast this week.

So..this is trickier than a normal family situation.

Should they have refused to do the interview because of their future connection (albeit a loose one?)Should she never criticise him again, as a journalist, because of their loose connection?Should the Blairs accept a separation between their professional and personal relationships?

I think there's a conflict of interest right off if she expects to be more than a puff interviewer. No matter how it goes, it's going to end badly for someone, possibly everyone.

In a perfect world, one might harshly drag one's future in-law (not sure what the "vaguely" is in reference to) over the coals in public, and both of you agree "nothing personal" afterwards. In real life, it's not that easy. Politicians still have feelings, and if you're going to take an adversarial approach in public, you'll have to expect it to rub off in private as well.

That's assuming this is the real problem. A woman who announces she's going to "crash" a wedding she's been told she isn't welcome at strikes me as someone who might very well have created other issues within her family.

Logged

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

I hate when people air their dirty laundry for all to see. And this new found love of going to the media to air your grievances tends to backfire, because 9 out of 10 times the whiners screaming they have been wronged are the instigators of the trouble in the first place. And I personally feel she is committing professional Darwinism. She could have just kept her mouth shut and let her absence been noted (and I'm sure it would have been) and when people asked why she wasn't there she could have just said one of our lines on here "Oh I'm not sure, you will have to ask the Blairs" then bean dip. Now, people are not going to want to give her interviews because of her behavior. I have a feeling this woman is a pot stirrer.

The story coming out is that she recently interviewed Blair and, like a journalist should, didn't suck up to him as a future vaguely 'in-law', but did a normal interview, which included some criticism of him over the Iraq war. The interview is to be broadcast this week.

So..this is trickier than a normal family situation.

Should they have refused to do the interview because of their future connection (albeit a loose one?)Should she never criticise him again, as a journalist, because of their loose connection?Should the Blairs accept a separation between their professional and personal relationships?

Assuming thats true and the only truth. Being an adverse journalist is a good reason not to invite someone into your private home. ieIf Madona's daughter was about to marry the son of a paparazzi who weeks before the wedding sold pics of Madona I would expect them t be banned from her home as well.

And this new found love of going to the media to air your grievances tends to backfire, because 9 out of 10 times the whiners screaming they have been wronged are the instigators of the trouble in the first place.

And pod to you for this.

Logged

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

I hate when people air their dirty laundry for all to see. And this new found love of going to the media to air your grievances tends to backfire, because 9 out of 10 times the whiners screaming they have been wronged are the instigators of the trouble in the first place. And I personally feel she is committing professional Darwinism. She could have just kept her mouth shut and let her absence been noted (and I'm sure it would have been) and when people asked why she wasn't there she could have just said one of our lines on here "Oh I'm not sure, you will have to ask the Blairs" then bean dip. Now, people are not going to want to give her interviews because of her behavior. I have a feeling this woman is a pot stirrer.

And POD to Twik on this interview being a conflict of interest.

Good points. The appearance is to make the wedding all about her. She could have been wronged the party, but by mentioning it casts her in a negative light.